Members Present: |
Rob Skolnick, Helen Robertson, Ed Hand, Sheila Dinsmoor, and Planner- Ethan Parsons |
Also Present: |
Dean Behrend, Richard Honan, Georgianna Donadio, Phyllis Tedesco, Constantine Tsomides, Tom McBride, Prue Hay, Frank Tarantino, Susan Tarantino, Al Thoman, Sheila Thoman |
Mr. Skolnick brought the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
1. |
7:30 pm |
Miele Gallery |
55 Washington St. |
Wall sign |
DRB: 67-08 |
Mr. Richard Honan explained that Miele Gallery wishes to update their store. The proposed sign is part of the update. The proposed sign is the same size as the older sign, with a change in some text. The new sign will read “Miele” in 13” bold white letters and “Gallery” in 6” white letters. The sign will be 32” high by 120” wide- or 26.6 square feet. The new sign will be constructed of sign foam. Whereas the old Miele sign was carved the new sign will have raised letters. Otherwise, the colors used and mounting position will be the same as the existing sign.
Robert Skolnick asked whether the larger “L” in “GALLERY” was intentionally larger than the other letters. Mr. Honan said that it was the choice of the business owner to have one of the letters larger than the others. Sheila Dinsmoor observed that the sign would be different than several of the adjacent signs given that the letters are raised. Mr. Honan observed that nearby Café Mangal actually has a similar sign. Ed Hand moved to accept the sign as presented. The Board unanimously approved of the proposal.
2. |
7:40 pm |
Center for Whole Health |
326 Washington St. |
Awning |
DRB: 65-08 |
Ms. Georgianna Donadio presented her proposal to install a new awning sign at her 326 Washington Street location. The sign will be 10’ wide by 2’ high with 5 and ¼ inch white letters on the valance to read: “Center for Whole Health”. The sign will not be illuminated.
Sheila Dinsmoor asked why Ms. Donadio chose to do an awning rather than a wall sign. Ms. Donadio said she prefers the appearance of awning signs to wall signs. Ms. Dinsmoor moved to approve of the application. The Board unanimously approved of the proposal.
3. |
8:00 pm |
Elizabeth Seton Residence |
125 Oakland Street |
Minor |
LHR: 15-08M |
Phyllis Tedesco, Constantine Tsomides and Tom McBride presented their proposal for a minor construction project, including: a 19 foot by 21 foot- 1,080 square foot addition with an elevator serving the basement, ground and first floors, and offices on the ground and first floors; a 28 foot by 23 foot- 1,280 square foot addition with a country kitchen, lounge on the ground floor and a lounge on the first floor. The additions will render 2,360 square feet. Site work will consist of a fenced-in sensory wandering garden for Alzheimer’s residents with a fence enclosure, measuring approximately 41 feet by 75 feet; and mechanical work consisting of replacement of existing rooftop HVAC units, which will be similar to the existing units. The new work will fill in an existing passage between sections of the
building. Colonial lanterns will light the sensory garden. All new materials will match the existing materials. The view from the public way will be very minimal.
Mr. Hand moved to accept the proposal. The Board unanimously approved of the proposal.
4. |
8:15 pm |
Dean Behrend |
978 Worcester Street |
Special Permit for standing sign |
DRB: 07-08M |
Mr. Behrend requested the Design Review Board confirm that they reviewed a special permit application for a standing sign to be located at 978 Worcester St. At the Design Review Board meeting on June 11, 2008 Mr. Behrend asked the Board to review a proposed standing sign to be located 20’ from Worcester Street. The proposed standing sign would be located on two pillars and would extend 13’-5” in height. The sign portion would be double faced, with each side measuring 7’ wide by 7’ high, for a total square footage of 98 square feet. The face of the sign would be painted metal and would be a directory sign for 3-4 businesses. The sign proposed would have a fypon cornice to match the proposed commercial structure. An address sign for the residential units is
proposed at the bottom of the sign. The proposed standing sign would need a special permit for exceeding the maximum square footage in a Commercial District fronting Worcester Street, and for exceeding the maximum height of 10’.
The Board approved of the proposal on June 11, 2008.
On October 22, 2008 Mr. Behrend returned with an amended plan showing essentially the same standing sign but measuring 14 feet, 5 and ¾ inches high rather than 13 feet, 5 inches high.
The Board confirmed that they approved of the sign presented June 11, 2008 and approve of the sign proposal to measure 14 feet, 5 and ¾ inches high, shown on the plans dated 8/19/08.
5. |
8:20 pm |
Dean Behrend |
169 Grove St. |
LHR |
LHR: 12-08L |
Mr. Behrend noted for the record that the proposal for 169 Grove St. calls for typical asphalt shingles rather than the wood cedar shingles previously proposed. Mr. Behrend will submit plans showing this amendment.
The Board acknowledged and accepted this amendment.
6. |
8:25 pm |
Dean Behrend |
30 Benvenue St. |
LHR |
LHR: 13-08L |
At the request of the DRB at their previous meeting Mr. Behrend returned to the Board to continue his presentation of the proposal for a house at 30 Benvenue, as part of Large House Review. Mr. Behrend presented amended sight line plans showing the potential view of the proposed house from the Tarantino’s property. He explained that the fence on top of the retaining wall and hemlocks within the fence and proposed driveway easement would replace the existing visual barrier created by three hemlock trees along the northern property line and that the visual impact of the proposed house would actually be less than that created by the existing structure on the site. Mr. Behrend explained that the existing structure actually had a larger footprint than the house he proposes to build on the
site.
Mr. Hand asked whether the heights of the houses were accurate. Mr. Behrend stated that they were accurate. Mr. Hand asked whether the proposed fence remained in the same location and whether it remained the same type as previously presented. Mr. Behrend stated that he proposes to move the fence to the rear of the lot line (northern side) at 30 Benvenue. In so doing, Mr. Behrend would remove three hemlock trees currently on the northern side of the existing fence but within the lot of 30 Benvenue. Mr. Behrend described his proposal to replace the 3 existing hemlocks with roughly 6 arborvitae and 6 hemlocks along the southerly side of the driveway easement. Mr. Skolnick questioned how large the trees would become over time. Mr. Behrend stated that the trees would reach a height of
approximately 40 feet.
Mr. Hand observed that there is difficulty in reviewing the proposal according to the review criteria of the Design Review Board because the visual impact of the proposed work remains uncertain. Mr. Behrend noted that the retaining wall would no longer be constructed of boulders but rather of concrete slab. Mr. Behrend noted this change is a result of concerns about safety and his liability. He observed that the construction of a retaining wall of any material and the placement of the fence on top of the wall would create a physical and visual barrier of between 8.5’ and 9.5’ in height.
Ms. Dinsmoor stated that she is not as concerned about replacing the existing structure with a new house that is actually smaller in footprint and size than the existing structure. She is concerned, however, with the impact on the neighbors and the natural features along the northern property line caused by relocating the driveway easement.
Mr. Behrend reminded the Board that since his original application he has reduced the size of the house, lowered the roofline and proposed a pervious driveway area, among other amendments. He asked the Board why he shouldn’t have the right to move the fence to the property boundary.
Mr. Tarantino, an abutter, observed that the relocation of the driveway easement would potentially create an unsafe situation. Ms. Haye, an abutter, observed that she and the Tarantino’s would be looking at a concrete wall as high as 3.5’ with a fence on top, which would be negative from a design perspective.
Mr. Behrend excused himself from the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Tarantino stated the elevations and figures used in the sight line plan were conjecture. He was concerned about the accuracy of the sight line plan and the actual view from his property. Mr. Hand expressed that were the house to be further reduced in size it would not be necessary to relocate the easement all the way to the property line and therefore install the retaining wall. He suggested that there are ways to maintain the existing landscape along the northern property line and still build a house on the lot. The Board generally shared Mr. Hand’s opinion that constructing a retaining wall as proposed would create a disruption to the existing natural features and landscape and would be negative from a design perspective.
The Board adjourned at 9:10 pm.
Ethan Parsons
Planner
Minutes Approved:
| 
